Iran tells IAEA it is building 2nd enrichment plant: diplomats

[maddezmom]

Source: Reuters

Iran tells IAEA it is building 2nd enrichment plant: diplomats
Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:50am EDT
VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran has informed the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency that it has a second uranium enrichment plant under construction, diplomats told Reuters on Friday.

They said the Islamic Republic told the International Atomic Energy Agency of the plant's existence in a letter to IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei earlier this week.

A senior diplomat close to the IAEA said the Iran had told the agency the facility was a pilot, or experimental-level, enrichment site that was not yet in operation.

Iran was previously known to have one enrichment plant, a vast underground hall at Natanz where it has stockpiled low-enriched uranium in a steadily expanding operation with almost 5,000 centrifuge machines.

The Natanz plant is under daily surveillance by IAEA inspectors, but Iran concealed the site and other initial aspects of its enrichment program from U.N. non-proliferation inspectors until it was exposed by Iranian exiles in 2002.



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE58O1N4200...

[maddezmom]

1. a bit more here: Secret Iranian nuclear plant

Secret Iranian nuclear plant claim
US, Britain and France are to accuse Iran of building a secret uranium enrichment plant outside the holy city of Qom


Stunning news out of Pittsburgh. I have just been on the phone to the IAEA and they are running around trying to put a coherent line together, but they confirm the main facts of story, saying the best account of them to date is David Sanger's in the New York Times.
This changes every equation on Iran. All the estimates about how long it would take Iran to build a nuclear arsenal are built on the assumption that the process of enriching uranium was being closely monitored by the array of IAEA cameras and inspections in Natanz. IAEA inspectors calculated how fast Iran was producing Low Enriched Uranium Iran (it had amassed 1,508 kg by the last report in August) on the basis of the number of centrifuges it had installed there (8,000 by last count). The whole timeline was based on Natanz. So was Russia and China's claim that there was still a lot of time for diplomacy to play out. Natanz was being watched, they argued, so any shift to produce Highly Enriched Uranium for weapons would be seen coming a long way ahead.

more:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/julian-borger-global-se...

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FarCenter]

6. Since the US and others have known about this plant, it must have already been taken into account

"All the estimates about how long it would take Iran to build a nuclear arsenal are built on the assumption that the process of enriching uranium was being closely monitored by the array of IAEA cameras and inspections in Natanz. "

The above can't be true, since in other news stories, it says that American intelligence has known about the construction of this second plant for years.

[twitomy]

2. For medicinal purposes only, no doubt

Bibi is going to take care of this, cause Obama wont.

[dr_aswan]

4. baby milk research factory

[maddezmom]

5. Iran admits to having second enrichment plant: IAEA

Iran admits to having second enrichment plant: IAEA
(AFP) – 41 minutes ago

VIENNA — Iran has informed the UN atomic watchdog that it is building a second uranium enrichment plant, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Friday.

"On September 21, Iran informed the IAEA in a letter that a new pilot fuel enrichment plant is under construction in the country," the watchdog's spokesman Marc Vidricaire said in a statement.

"Iran assured the agency in the letter that 'further complementary information will be provided in an appropriate and due time'," Vidricaire said.

"In response, the IAEA has requested Iran to provide specific information and access to the facility as soon as possible. This will allow the agency to assess safeguards verification requirements for the facility."

more:http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jXxR...

[Igel]

7. But they're trustworthy.

After all, they *would* have admitted it.

Like they admitted everything else.

This is how it goes:

Round 1:
Iranians: We commit to honesty, openness, and adherence to our obligations.

Group 1: See, we can trust them. They're good guys and we should be really nice to them because, well, we're less honest, open, and don't adhere 100% to our obligations.

Group 2: Excuse us, but we seem to have discovered a secret program.

Round 2:
I: Yes, uh, we were going to mention this as part of our undeniable honesty, openness, and adherence to our obligations.

G1: See, they were going to tell us. They say it's for peaceful purposes, we believe them. After all, they're good guys and we should be really nice to them because, well, we're less honest, open, and don't adhere 100% to our obligations.

G2: Excuse us, but we seem to have discovered another secret program.

Round i = 3 + n, n = 0, 1, 2, 3 . . .
I: Yes, uh, we were going to mention this as part of our undeniable honesty, openness, and adherence to our obligations.

G1: See, they were going to tell us. They say it's for peaceful purposes, we believe them. After all. . .

G2: Excuse us, but we seem to have discovered. . .

[Arctic Dave]

8. Sounds appropriate. If someone is constantly threatening to blow up your facility

it would make sense to build another one that is off the radar. It's not like we don't do the exact same thing.

[bemildred]

9. Iran defends new enrichment plant

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, has reacted strongly to international condemnation of the Islamic Republic's second uranium enrichment facility, saying it was within the "parameters of the UN nuclear watchdog's rules".

Ahmadinejad's remarks on Friday came hours after Barack Obama, the US president, and other world leaders accused Tehran of "breaking rules".

"It's not a secret site," Ahmadinejad told a news conference in New York, saying he would have no problem allowing international inspections.

He also said Israel "wouldn't dare to attack" Iran and that Iranians were able to defend themselves.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/09/20...

[bemildred]

10. Iran in arms race with Israel

Thursday, August 06, 2009

Iran is one of the world's most significant nations in terms of history, culture and intellectual capacity, and is matched in the Middle East perhaps only by Israel.

It is a small wonder, then, that when Iran's hard-line and irascible president talks of building military capability and destroying Israel, Tel Aviv feels its survival is menaced and that Tehran's regime is its nemesis.


http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/08/200985121520...

[bemildred]

11. Who's afraid of Iran?

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

---

Iran's refusal to halt its nuclear programme despite US, Israeli and EU pressures is increasing tensions in the region, Middle East analysts have told Al Jazeera.

For many in the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC), the regional bloc comprising of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, Iran's position over the nuclear issue is a disturbing development.

"Iran for us is a threat by its very own size," says Sami Al Faraj, a consultant on national security and strategic planning to the Gulf Co-operation Council and the president of the Kuwait Centre for Strategic Studies.

"As with all Arab conflicts in history, the battle is always about the terrain. We do not fear them on air, nor politically.

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/iran/2008/07/2008722...

[Prometheus Bound]

12. I can see why the leadership of these countries would prefer the US as their protector.

There must be some way for the US to profit from this -- to make money for providing the ultimate security guarantee.

(sorry off topic)

[bemildred]

13. Well, the oil is the thing.

Nobody would care a fig about their security (except them of course) without all that oil. And we have used quite a bit of their oil.

[bemildred]

14. Keeping Iran honest -- Scott Ritter

Also an OP in Editorials. Nice to see Mr Ritter is still around.

It was very much a moment of high drama. Barack Obama, fresh from his history-making stint hosting the UN security council, took a break from his duties at the G20 economic summit in Pittsburgh to announce the existence of a secret, undeclared nuclear facility in Iran which was inconsistent with a peaceful nuclear programme, underscoring the president's conclusion that "Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow".

Obama, backed by Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy, threatened tough sanctions against Iran if it did not fully comply with its obligations concerning the international monitoring of its nuclear programme, which at the present time is being defined by the US, Britain and France as requiring an immediate suspension of all nuclear-enrichment activity.

The facility in question, said to be located on a secret Iranian military installation outside of the holy city of Qom and capable of housing up to 3,000 centrifuges used to enrich uranium, had been monitored by the intelligence services of the US and other nations for some time. But it wasn't until Monday that the IAEA found out about its existence, based not on any intelligence "scoop" provided by the US, but rather Iran's own voluntary declaration. Iran's actions forced the hand of the US, leading to Obama's hurried press conference Friday morning.

Beware politically motivated hype. While on the surface, Obama's dramatic intervention seemed sound, the devil is always in the details. The "rules" Iran is accused of breaking are not vague, but rather spelled out in clear terms. In accordance with Article 42 of Iran's Safeguards Agreement, and Code 3.1 of the General Part of the Subsidiary Arrangements (also known as the "additional protocol") to that agreement, Iran is obliged to inform the IAEA of any decision to construct a facility which would house operational centrifuges, and to provide preliminary design information about that facility, even if nuclear material had not been introduced. This would initiate a process of complementary access and design verification inspections by the IAEA.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009...

[grantcart]

15. Iran acknowledges second nuclear facility

Source: CNN

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed Friday that Iran admitted the existence of the "new pilot fuel enrichment plant," prompting Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy to respond at the G-20 economic summit in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

...

Obama said the United States, Britain and France presented "detailed evidence" to the IAEA on Thursday showing that Iran "has been building a covert uranium enrichment facility near Qom for several years."

They demanded an immediate investigation into the facility and threatened a stiff response if Iran fails to conform to international obligations regarding nuclear development.

Iran's admission comes ahead of next week's rare meeting between Iran and the five permanent United Nations Security Council members, plus Germany. The October 1 meeting will take place in Geneva, Switzerland, according to Iran's government funded Press TV.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/09/25/iran.nuclear/...

[Turbineguy]

16. Qom?

isn't that an earthquake prone area?

Oh yes! We put it underground in case a fissure opened up!

Clever, those Mullahs.

[bemildred]

17. World reaction to Iran's nuclear sites

It is still far from certain whether Russia will support tough new UN sanctions against Iran.

In his talks with President Barack Obama in New York Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev's language was equivocal.

He said sanctions "may be inevitable". He certainly did not promise Russia would support them.

It is also not clear who President Medvedev was speaking for. Himself, or the whole of the Russian government?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8275501.stm

[bemildred]

18. UPDATE: Iran Aiding Venezuela In Uranium Studies - Official

PORLAMAR, Venezuela (Dow Jones)--Venezuela possesses important uranium reserves that are being probed with Iran's help, Venezuelan Mining Minister Rodolfo Sanz said Friday.

"We have important uranium reserves," Sanz told reporters during a meeting of South American and African heads of states. "Iran is helping us with geophysical aerial probes and geochemical analyses."

Venezuela's uranium reserves are located in the mineral-rich state of Bolivar and in Tachira, which borders Colombia, Sanz added. The government will seek to certify the reserves in the next two to three years, he said.

President Hugo Chavez will decide if the country's uranium reserves are used in Venezuela or if they will be exported, the minister said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090925-710126.htm...

[ShortnFiery]

19. Terrific, we get another war two-fer. eom

[bemildred]

21. Good enemies are hard to come by.

I've been sort of wondering if this is what the British were so worked up about, you know meeting with Obama "face-to-face" and all that, getting this little dog-and-pony show going.

[USA_1]

20. 5% Enrichment capability

it would take 90% enrichment capability to create nuke bombs

therefore this is not a nuke bomb making facillity

[grantcart]

22. all true but it is also a facility that the Iranians did not disclose to IAEA

Which makes you wonder why they would be risking even more sanctions if they are not intending to make weapons.

[bananas]

25. No, it's not "all true", they can use it to get 90% enriched bomb-grade uranium,and it is a violatio

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion...

<snip>

James Acton: There is no essential difference between the technology required to enrich to 5% and 90%. Once Iran has mastered the technology to produce low enriched uranium, it can reconfigure the equipment to produce HEU relatively simply. There is some technical debate among experts about how long it would take to do so--but none that it is possible.

<snip>

Iran's original agreement with the IAEA (its so-called Subsidiary Agreements) specified that new facilities should be declared to the IAEA 180 days before nuclear material was introduced. However, in 2003 Iran, by an exchange of letters, Iran agreed to the modified "Code 3.1" which obliges it to report new facilities as soon as the decision to build one is taken. When Iran agreed to this in 2003 it was the last state with significant nuclear activities to do so.

In 2007 Iran tried to claim that its modified Code 3.1 wasn't binding because it hadn't been ratified. However, this argument is wrong because exchange of letters is the standard procedure for modifying Subsidiary Arrangements.

I am almost certain (although would like to double check) that Subsidiary Arrangements (unlike Safeguards Agreements and Additional Protocols) are not ratified by national legislatures. So it is absurd to claim that changes to Subsidiary Arrangements need ratification.

Finally, I'd point out that under para 39 of Iran's Safeguards Agreement it cannot unilaterally modify a subsidiary arrangement.

has tried to claim that Code 3.1 isn't binding but this agreement can only be modified with the permission of both the IAEA and Iran. So, the new facility is indeed a violation of Iran's safeguards agreement. They can only be changed with the permission of both the state and the IAEA.

<snip>

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2476/parallel-fuel-cycle...

<snip>

First, the unclassified US talking points state that the facility would be capable of producing about a weapons worth of material per year. A 3,000 centrifuge facility using Iran’s antiquated IR-1 centrifuges would be able to produce about one and a half weapons worth of high enriched uranium per year (39 kilograms with tails set to 0.4 per cent and 34 kilograms with tails set to 0.3 per cent). If equipped with more advanced centrifuges, the facility becomes quite lethal. The last generation of SNOR designs, for instance, if installed in Qom, could easily produce up to 80 kilograms worth of weapons grade uranium per year. The centrifuges would require little room, about 30 meters square, and draw very little power.

<snip>

Finally, we are definitely looking at a safeguards violation. It’s worth recalling that Iran did upgrade its subsidiary arrangements to oblige them to report facilities to the IAEA when they were at the design stage. They did this in 2003. They unilaterally pulled out of this arrangement in 2007. As James Acton correctly points out, the arrangement entered into force through simple exchange of letters. As in any contract, the principle pacta sunt servanda prevails (just put that term in Google).

A state can no more pull out of a contract than you can get out of, say, a mobile phone contract before it expires. It takes two parties to terminate an agreement. And the IAEA never accepted Iran’s withdrawal.

Not that it matters. It would seem like construction started at some time before March 2007. That is, at a time when even Iran itself considered itself bound by Code 3.1.

<snip>

[bananas]

23. Wrong.

Uranium Enrichment Calculator: http://www.fas.org/cgi-bin/calculators/ucountdown.pl

[truthisfreedom]

24. Iran and IKEA are in cahoots?

Well I never!